Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

The "rowhouse belt" in the U.S. basically runs from the Albany region down to northern Virginia (Old Town Alexandria). It's by far most well represented in Pennsylvania, where virtually every small city and borough in the eastern part of the state (south of the Scranton area, and east of Harrisburg) which has 19th century or earlier structures has rowhouses. Really, you can find rowhouses in municipalities with a few thousand people.

Heading west, there are three notable rowhouse cities: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Saint Louis. Indianapolis and Columbus were rowhouse cities at one point, but urban renewal just about has erased all record of this (particularly for Indianapolis). Then there's nothing until you hit San Francisco on the west coast.

Boston is the only place in New England where you find significant numbers of rowhouses. The urban vernacular switched to detached wooden houses (like farmhouses which happened to be in the city) pretty early on. I know of one surviving stand in New Haven, but that's about it. Rowhouses are also rare in the upper Midwest, but Chicago has a few (although brick houses which look like rowhouses but have a few feet of space between them are far more common)

The older southern cities (Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans) have rowhouses in their oldest segments. Richmond also has one or two surviving rowhouse neighborhoods.

I forgot to add that Cleveland was an "on the fence" type of choice for me but unlike what other posters are saying, Cleveland does indeed have row-houses.

You know the more I scour google maps, I see what you mean -- you are correct. There are at least a few dozen examples of older row homes throughout. Thanks for causing me to explore my own city some more

The examples are independent of each other though. Cleveland's doesn't have any row home neighborhoods.

Duluth's older row houses are concentrated in a single district just east of downtown. They are thought of as "apartments" here because they are usually rented out. Aside from the first one, I would suspect that most are low-income housing, just as they were 100 years ago when they were 10-30 years old and rented out to laborers.

There has been a trend towards building row-houses of another kind recently. I ought to get some pictures when I'm in town next. These are mainly targeted towards seniors or those with low-to-moderate incomes, although you wouldn't think so by their appearance and especially views, which would be worth a million dollars in most other cities but are available on public assistance in Duluth.

Idk if Richmond VA is considered a row house city to most but its has more than 1 or 2 row neighborhoods as eschaton posted earlier, Jackson Ward, Church Hill, The Fan, Monument Ave. and Carver to name a few.

My apologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nei

From what I can tell, St. Louis has only a handful of rowhouses, most of the older house stock is brick house close together.

It's hard to tell, since much of the housing stock had been partially obliterated, meaning some former rowhomes are now detached. Still, you may be right. Even in core neighborhoods like Soulard probably no more than 1/3rd of the stock are rows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nei

There are a number of small New England cities that have a block or two: Springfield, Holyoke in Western MA, for example.

This is true. I was just saying in general they are rare in New England outside of Boston.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo_1

Would cities like St. Louis or Cincinnati be considered row house cities? I mean they only seem to have a few neighborhoods that have actual row houses (as in the buildings are connected), though they do have many other neighborhoods that have buildings that are similar to row houses but there are a few feet between them. I guess it would depend on how strict people's definition of row houses are.

Hrrm. Cincinnati does seem somewhat similar to Saint Louis, in the "detached rowhouse" is the most common form (except in Over-The-Rhine). Presumably there were more rowhomes in areas since urban renewed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvdxer

You've obviously never been to Duluth:

I've heard about Duluth's famous rowhouses, but never been able to find more than a couple when doing Google Street View.

Cleveland was listed by someone, but Minneapolis and St. Paul actually have row houses also. They are just often independent and random, rather than in cohesive neighborhoods (except for Elliot Park).

Those are some fine examples. Are they actual rowhouses though? Some of them seem like they're probably set up as apartment buildings on the inside, albeit with a lot of entrances. A true row house was built with one entrance per residence (which is why NYC brownstones, which tended to have two different two-floor units originally, aren't generally rowhouses).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvdxer

Duluth's older row houses are concentrated in a single district just east of downtown. They are thought of as "apartments" here because they are usually rented out. Aside from the first one, I would suspect that most are low-income housing, just as they were 100 years ago when they were 10-30 years old and rented out to laborers.

That explains why I've never been able to find one for sale on Zillow or something. I often use filters to look for houses older than a certain age (say 1919 or 1899) to see what rowhouses I can find. Except in Philadelphia and Baltimore, virtually all rowhouses were built before 1920.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvdxer

There has been a trend towards building row-houses of another kind recently. I ought to get some pictures when I'm in town next. These are mainly targeted towards seniors or those with low-to-moderate incomes, although you wouldn't think so by their appearance and especially views, which would be worth a million dollars in most other cities but are available on public assistance in Duluth.

What you're referring to are "townhouses." Builders like em because they're cheaper to build than detached housing. In some rare cases, they can make them historic looking, but you can usually tell they aren't for real because they almost always lack basements and attics, and have vinyl siding and parking lots in the back.

It's hard to tell, since much of the housing stock had been partially obliterated, meaning some former rowhomes are now detached. Still, you may be right. Even in core neighborhoods like Soulard probably no more than 1/3rd of the stock are rows.

I remember looking at % attached housing for St. Louis, and it was low (10%). Census site is down. Much of NYC's rowhouse stock gets counted as small apartment buildings by the census since they're tall enough that household are living on top of each other (4 stories)*. Though similar housing in Philly might be kept as one unit.

*NYC Brownstone neighborhoods are denser than any other rowhouse neighborhood in the US for that reason, and denser in fact, that any rowhouse neighborhood in London, where the scarcer 4 story rowhouses are often used as near mansion-sized townhouses and not subdivided.

I remember looking at % attached housing for St. Louis, and it was low (10%). Census site is down. Much of NYC's rowhouse stock gets counted as small apartment buildings by the census since they're tall enough that household are living on top of each other (4 stories)*. Though similar housing in Philly might be kept as one unit.

*NYC Brownstone neighborhoods are denser than any other rowhouse neighborhood in the US for that reason, and denser in fact, that any rowhouse neighborhood in London, where the scarcer 4 story rowhouses are often used as near mansion-sized townhouses and not subdivided.

But then, to a Pittsburgh resident, this isn't surprising. We have a few big remaining swathes of rowhouses. One is in neighborhoods of the Lower North Side (Central North Side, Allegheny West, Manchester, East Allegheny, and Troy Hill mostly). The other is in the older neighborhoods of the East End (Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill, and parts of Oakland). The third is South Side Flats. Significant sections of the city in and around downtown were full of rowhouses, but demolished during urban renewal (particularly the Hill District, which basically lost its urban fabric, but also the Strip District and other portions of the North Side). The majority of the city is detached though - either due to being too recent (rowhouses basically stopped being built here in large numbers in the 1920s) or topography (attached housing is difficult to build in hilly areas).

Still, as bigger cities go, by this measure, Pittsburgh clearly has the fifth-highest percentage of rowhomes, after Philly, Baltimore, DC, and New Orleans. Still, given the number of modern suburbs in the DC area, Florida, Minnesota, and California that make the list, I think "townhouse" numbers in some cities might be screwing up the averages in some cases.

Hmm. I'm surprised, my image of Pittsburgh is rowhouses (as well as detached houses close together). Perhaps, the rowhouse neighborhoods get more attention. New York City probably has more rowhouses than Pittsburgh, but but because of the reason I mentioned earlier (households living on top of each other), they don't get counted. San Francisco has tiny gaps between a lot of houses, but they appear like rowhouses from first glance, more so than St. Louis. And since San Francisco uses less set back than St. Louis, it gives more of a streetwall appearance. Not rowhouses in San Francisco:

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.